The doctrine of Hell, a place of everlasting punishment for the wicked, finds its roots in the Tanakh, the Old Testament. While not fully articulated there, the concept exists in seed form, discernible to those attentively studying God’s revelation. (Jn 3:7–10).
While the Tanakh does not explicitly describe Hell as a fiery, eternal abode the way we find it in the New Testament (2Th 1:7), it does contain vivid imagery related to moral distinctions which prefigure and lead us to this understanding. Daniel 12:2 states, “And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” This is perhaps the clearest hint given in the Tanakh, introducing a post-mortem, eternal suffering: the righteous inherit “everlasting life,” while the wicked face “everlasting contempt.” The Hebrew olam (everlasting) and deraon (contempt) suggest a permanent, disgraceful fate, a precursor to eternal punishment, which a diligent reader should perceive as divine justice extending beyond the grave.
Isaiah 66:24 illuminates further: “And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” The unquenched fire and undying worm depict a lasting physical judgment, likely tied symbolically to the Valley of Hinnom (Gehinnom), a place of dismal, abhorrent destruction. This imagery, though focused on physical ruin, hints at an unfathomable eternal consequence for rebellion, foreshadowing a reality more severe than earthly death.
Isaiah 33:14 extends the imagery by capturing the terror of divine judgment: “The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” The “devouring fire” and “everlasting burnings” evidently symbolize God’s holiness and wrath (De 4:24). The dread felt by sinners as they perceive the ultimate threat of divine wrath suggests an inescapable, impending, eternal judgment, a window into Hell’s eternal fire, discernible to those pondering God’s justice.
Psalm 1:5–6 reinforces this: “Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish.” The “perishing” of the ungodly and their exclusion from the reward of the righteous imply permanent, divine rejection, aligning with the Tanakh’s covenantal framework where disobedience brings destruction (De 28:15). This shows us there will be a final separation of the righteous from the wicked; the wicked be unable to withstand God’s piercing, fiery judgment and will suffer immeasurably in the face of His indignation. (Ps 69:24)
Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament elaborate on the Tanakh’s foreshadowing and imagery, confirming what attentive readers should have understood. In Matthew 25:46 Christ openly declares, “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.” This directly echoes Daniel 12:2, replacing “shame and everlasting contempt” with “everlasting punishment” and affirming “life eternal” for the righteous. Jesus’ use of “everlasting fire” in Matthew 25:41 (“Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.”) draws on Isaiah 66:24’s unquenched fire and Isaiah 33:14’s everlasting burnings, clarifying their eternal nature.
In Mark 9:43–48, Jesus warns, “If thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into Hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” This directly quotes Isaiah 66:24, applying its imagery to Gehenna (Hell), the New Testament term derived from the Tanakh’s Valley of Hinnom. Christ’s repetition of “fire… not quenched” confirms the Tanakh’s seed as a literal, eternal reality, intensifying its horror beyond symbolic destruction.
Jesus’ parable in Luke 16:23–24 further elaborates: “And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off… and he cried and said… I am tormented in this flame.” The rich man’s conscious torment in flames builds on Isaiah 33:14s “devouring fire” and Deuteronomy 32:22’s fiery wrath, revealing Hell as a place of suffering, consistent with the Tanakh’s hints of divine indignation (Na 1:6, “Who can stand before his indignation?”).
The New Testament doctrine of Hell is consistent with the Tanakh, which emphasizes God’s holiness, justice and covenant. The Tanakh informs us of the basic concepts — fire (Is 66:24, 33:14), contempt (Da 12:2), and perishing (Ps 1:5–6) —reflecting divine wrath against sin, which Christ’s words clarify as eternal punishment. The righteous’ contrasting fate (Ps 23:5–6, Da 12:2) aligns with the Gospel’s eternal life, showing God’s unified plan: reward for obedience, punishment for rebellion.
Like Nicodemus, who should have understood spiritual rebirth from Ezekiel 36:26 (“A new heart also will I give you”), readers of the Tanakh should discern the reality of Hell in its warnings of judgment. Christ’s teachings do not introduce a foreign concept but fulfill the Tanakh’s moral framework, revealing Hell’s full reality as more horrific than its symbols.
The Tanakh plants the seeds pointing us to the reality of Hell, painting the reality of eternal judgment for the wicked and eternal life for the righteous. Christ’s words confirm and elaborate upon these seeds, unveiling Hell’s eternal fire as the reality behind the Tanakh’s fire, shame, and everlasting contempt. This doctrine, consistent with God’s revelation, calls us to humbly heed scripture’s warnings and embrace the hope of the Gospel.
Many objections to the doctrine of Hell lack rational grounding; assertions that Hell does not exist are inherently irrational.
To claim Hell does not exist requires proof, which must take one of two forms:
(1) Exhaustive Search: Prove Hell’s absence by searching every possible location, which is impossible for a finite being.
(2) Logical Contradiction: Show how Hell’s existence contradicts established facts. This is also impossible; at best, we might struggle to reconcile Hell with a loving God, but lack of understanding does not prove contradiction. Claiming to so fully understand God as to confidently dismiss Hell is presumptuous.
Thus, asserting Hell does not exist incurs an unfulfillable burden of proof. Such claims reflect either ignorance or intentional dishonesty.
It is rational to acknowledge a lack of awareness of compelling evidence for Hell while remaining open to its possibility. One may be looking in the wrong places, or be unable to perceive the evidence, but this at least preserves basic intellectual integrity.
Perhaps the most authentic objection to Hell lies in the open, willfull rejection of any God Who allows it. While transparent, this is infinitely unwise as it presumes the right to be God’s judge (Romans 9:20).
One objection to the doctrine of Hell relates to Christ’s story about the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16, pointing out that the narrative contains detail not provided anywhere else in Scripture, thus the narrative must be metaphorical.
The presence of unique detail does not mean the detail is untrue, or that Christ was being metaphorical. There is zero evidence of this in the immediate context. This claim seems to be mere presumption.
In considering the doctrine of Hell forthrightly, one must address Pascal’s Wager: in choosing to live as if Hell does not exist, we are effectively making a wager (i.e. a bet, gamble) with our eternity. What is the expected gain and loss in doing so?
If we choose to act as if there is no Hell, our expected gain (G) is the expected happiness (H) of living how we choose in this life, times the probability we are correct (P); or G = H x P. Similarly, our expected loss (L) is the pain and suffering (S) we will experience if we go to Hell, times the probability we are incorrect (1-P); or L = S x (1-P).
Since S (the pain and suffering we might experience in Hell) is infinite and H (our earthly happiness in living how we like) is finite, unless P = 1 (we are absolutely, 100% certain there is no Hell) the expected outcome for betting there is no Hell is infinite loss. Since we have shown (in the 1st comment above) that P < 1 (no one can be 100% sure there is no Hell), it is irrational to make this bet. In other words, the only rational response to the available evidence, regardless how weak we feel it to be, is to live as if there might be a Hell: seek the living God and submit to Him as well as we can.
All objections I have seen to Pascal’s Wager assume what I consider to be the absurd: that there is zero credible evidence for the existence of Hell, as if we all know Jesus Christ didn’t exist or that He never mentioned it. I find any such objection fundamentally dishonest.
Another aspect of this debate involves the concept of hermeneutics: the rules we are using to interpret scripture. In my view, a consistent, literal hermeneutic is essential if we are to be honest with Scripture. It appears to me that those objecting to the doctrine of an eternal Hell are not following this approach; they are cherry-picking texts to support their view and arbitrarily deciding what is and is not metaphor.
To be fair, the biggest objection to the doctrine of Hell is likely grounded in the perception that most people are not given sufficient warning about Hell and end up there against their will, by accident, as it were, even though they aren’t that wicked. This seems inconsistent with a Loving God. We’d probably all be OK with Hell if we felt that people who suffer there really deserved it.
But what if God is constantly inviting the damned in Hell to repent and turn to Him, yet no one in Hell ever will? What if people who are suffering in Hell choose to remain there rather than giving up their sin and enmity against God, stubbornly persisting in their self-will? What if they would rather suffer in defiance than submit to God?
Why would anyone in Hell do such a thing?
Why would anyone on Earth, do such a thing? Yet they certainly do.
What is it about dying that changes a person’s essence and character? Who they are, down deep inside?
What we don’t see yet is how dreadfully wicked and stubborn everyone actually is who is not born again. The wicked are insanely foolish in their rebellion against God. Dying won’t change the wicked or cause them to repent.
Jesus says people who won’t listen to Moses and the prophets will not be persuaded even if someone they know comes back from the dead to warn them, trembling and pleading with tears. (Lk 16:31) We all have all the proof we need, here and now, to move us to seek God with fear and trembling.
Though a fool be pounded in a mortar among wheat with a pestle, pummeled, smashed and ground all the way down into powder, yet his foolishness will not depart from him. (Pr 27:22) No matter how much agony a fool suffers, they will never repent and turn to God. (Re 9:20-21, 16:11)
Is God unloving to let the wicked stay in Hell of their own choosing? As He constantly calls to them with open arms to come to Him? Eternally reminding the elect that, were it not for His grace, we would all be burning in our hatred and self-will right along with them? (Romans 12:33)
Tim,
Thank you for sharing. JESUS shared about it, talked about it, ALL we really need to know. When I was young, I had a deep revelation that the Almighty was HOLY. After that revelation which is backed up in scripture —- the arguments of theologians or unbelievers became meaningless. He IS HOLY. Whether mankind is “warned” about hell became irrelevant. What about children? He IS Holy, HE IS the Judge. All His judgments are Holy whether I discern it or not. HE IS ELOHIM and Not mankind. There is NO argument against His Holiness. NONE. The Cross is HOLY. Again, thank you for sharing. stephen
ps –
Arguments produce discussion which can be edifying; however, Look at what Holiness PRODUCES.
And one cried to another and said:
“Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts;
The whole earth is full of His glory!”
And the posts of the door were shaken by the voice of him who cried out, and the house was filled with smoke.
So I said:
“Woe is me, for I am [a]undone!
Because I am a man of unclean lips,
And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips;
For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”
Thanks Stephen! Truly edifying words. Yeshua is holy!
How does God feel about the people in Hell? He loves them; for He is love (Jn 4:16). God loves His enemies and does good to them (Mt 5:44); so it must also be that Hell is the result of His love for them.
It must also be true that God hates those in Hell: He hates all workers of iniquity (Ps 5:5). Yet this cannot be a malicious hatred, that merely seeks to impose pain and suffering for its own sake. It is a hatred of disgust and revulsion, which also seeks the well-being of His enemies.
God must also be very angry with those in Hell, for He is angry with the wicked every day (Ps 7:11). He must be angry that they will not repent and come to Him and believe on His Son (Jn 3:36), that they insist on continuing in their blasphemy, hatred and rebellion (Re 16:11), as He maintains a posture of love and willingness to receive them if they will just repent and turn to Him.
God must also be grieved with the insanity of the wicked, sorrowful that they continually choose to reject Him (Lk 13:34). He doesn’t get their rejection of Him (Ez 33:11): it grieves Him at His heart (Ge 6:6).
Perhaps Hell itself is the ultimate inevitability of willful sin: the only righteous outcome when the wicked persist in wickedness in the omnipresence of the Almighty. Perhaps Hell is simply the unapologetic unveiling of the majesty of God (Re 20:11), His consuming fire (He 12:29) turning loose to burn away, terrify and incapacitate all who willfully oppose Him to His face.
Perhaps Hell is God’s way of being merciful to Himself and to us who love Him, to shut down and snuff out all rebellion which will not restrain itself, simply by refusing to hide the wicked from Himself (Re 6:16), to let them fully experience Him who fills all in all (Ep 1:23). Perhaps this is how God gives Himself a break from His own suffering at their hand.
I take a more philosophical approach opposing the nearly overwhelming view that 1) all writings in the King’s Bible, OT or NT, are God’s Word.
and 2) utterly destroy means somthing other than utterly destroy or transform into the Carbon base of a high percentage of the Creation.
Greeks may be one of the sources for the dual or three part Human Being that is so prevalent today in all the modern translations.
It really doesn’t matter to me, but after observing different religions, many also make that distinction dividing the soul and spirit.
Even the Kings translation Genesis 1 indicates that Gods breath was breathed into mans nostril, same as animals and with the clay(earth) became a living Being. Not one without the other. In death the breath goes back to the Creator(Genesis).
Eccl. 9:5 and 12:7 suggest thats thoughts perish.
Maybe that is the first death every man faces. After that there are words in Revelation that suggest the wicked face the 2nd death, from which the wicked would not be ressurected.
Hell, or the fires of Gehenna(the are definitely unquenchable until every burnable fragment would be returned to dust.
If you believe every word authorized by a Pagan Ruler, Constantine or Pagan King, James was inspired by the Almighty, then I won’t post again to upset popular belief.
Thanks for the comment, Ben. No upset here; I do think you make some interesting points. I will carefully consider them.
I do choose the Bible (and, yes, the KJV in particular), as my final spiritual authority, and I welcome further discussion on this topic, or any other. I expect I would benefit from it.
Seems like you trust something other than the Bible in spiritual matters. I think VERY few people trust the Bible itself as their final spiritual authority (so I find your position to be aligned with the majority, not in opposition to it), but I don’t see any good alternative. What is your choice for a spiritual authority, and why have you chosen it?
I think the crux of your position is where you say, “Not one without the other”. You appear to be claiming that life itself requires the physical body, that consciousness does not exist apart from the earthly body.
You also appear to be acknowledging “breath” as a distinct entity apart from the body, but not equivalent to us, or to our soul.
If I am understanding you correctly, why do you believe this? What is your evidence for it? Perhaps that is related to my question about what spiritual authority you have chosen and why.
If I misunderstood you, please elaborate as you like. I’m looking forward to your replies.